Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Punjab State Industrial Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala on 4 December, 1996
The position of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in
(1997) 93 Taxman 5 (SC) is distinguishable on the facts that the issue before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to the fee paid to the Registrar
for expansion of capital which is not in the present case. Moreover, we have
the benefit of the letter dated 26.08.1965 where expenses listing on stock
exchange is mainly for the purpose of business wholly and exclusively
allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act as well. Therefore, from all angles put before
us by the parties, we are of the considered view that such an expenditure
incurred is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and is allowed
as Revenue expenditure. Accordingly all the grounds of the assessee are
allowed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5286/Del/12 is allowed.
Shahzada Nand & Sons vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala on 12 April, 1977
In view of the decisions cited by learned counsel for the assessee, it
is evident extra services rendered by employee is justified to be an employee
expenditure especially held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
ITAs No.5246, 5247, 5248, 5249, 5286/Del/2012 14
Shahzadnad and Sons (supra).
Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 24 April, 1970
In view of the above, the instructions issued under the Board's earlier
letter referred to above may be treated as withdrawn.
Article 8 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 85 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indore Municipal Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 March, 1997
"The above contention of the assessee can only be accepted if the DND flyover was a part of
a factory premise or any other premise of the assessee, in which there were other
constructions being used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and if this DND
flyover was by way of an approach road to these other constructions, then may be it could
have been assumed that the flyover, in such circumstances would have been entitled to
depreciation as building @ 10%. However, the case of the assessee is completely different as
it is claiming depreciation on the DND flyover, which is in fact just a road which is running
from one end to another, connecting Delhi and Noida. Considering these facts, the ratio of
the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Municipal
Corporation Vs. CIT 247 ITR 803 is fully applicable in the case of the assessee wherein it
was held that expenditure incurred by the assessee to construct metal road on trenchinq
around was not a revenue expenditure and the assessee was not entitled to depreciation
on the amount of the cost of construction of such roads. Thus, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that roads by themselves would nat constitute building, and if there
is' no canstruction except the rood, meaning thereby, if there are no other buildings or
factory premises or any other commercial complexes associated with that road, then
depreciation cannot be allowed to the assessee.